Florham Park's decison on Exxon disappoints

Florham Park Mayor Barbara Doyle recently denied a unanimous
request by the Madison Borough Council to extend the comment period
on the proposed ordinance t hat will govern the development of a
473-acre tract of land commonly known as the Exxon property. This
decision is surprising and disappointing for several reasons. The
development of such a large tract of largely vacant land will
impact not only Florham Park but also all the neighboring
communities. Most directly affected will be Madison and Morris
Township in addition to Florham Park itself. Howe ver the
implications go well beyond the adjacent towns. Potentially more
than 2 million square feet of office space and a hotel/ conference
center could be constructed on this property. Moreover it is likely
that an additional ramp from Route 24 linking to this property will
also be constructed. We understand and accept that this property
can be developed for commercial use. Our concern is that it be
developed in a manner that is consistent with the nature of our
communities and with an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts.
The ordinance governing nearby Giralda Farms could provide
guidance, yet the Florham Park officials have seemed unfamiliar
with it.

Given the complexity of such large-scale development and the
importance of the governing ordinance, it was the overwhelming
opinion of those who recently attended a Madison Council meeting
that an inadequate amount of time was provided to review this
ordinance. The Council concurred and therefore a 60-day extension
was requested. A Daily Record editorial (Nov. 30, 2001) endorsed
this request.

Despite these appeals, Florham Park's mayor reports that they
will proceed with their plan to act on this ordinance on Tuesday,
Dec. 18. That gives everyone less than one month to review a
document with wide-ranging and profound implications for our
communities. And it comes at a time of year when we are all pressed
for time already.

The response on the part of Florham Park officials that this
ordinance did not ' 'just come on the scene" is disingenuous at
best. The final version of the ordinance (for that matter the only
version) was made available on Nov. 20. Earlier requests for copies
of the ordinance were denied. Also disingenuous is the response
that "there will be ample time to comment during later hearings."
Once the new ordinance is in place and the developers come in with
a conforming plan, they are entitled to approval. Input from
citizens or other municipalities at that point would come down to
issues such as the placement of lights and trees, and perhaps
pleading for a ball field.

Is it too much to ask that an additional 60 days be provided so
that a proper review of this ordinance by all interested parties is
permitted? Projects with regional implications deserve the proper
regional attention. This is the time for a meaningful review. Allow
it to happen.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Be Yourself. We do not accept and will not approve
anonymous comments. If your username is not your name, please sign
your posts as you would a letter to the editor with your full name
and hometown.Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.